Choa y Sy v. People

Choa y Sy v. People

G.R. No. 256162 (Notice)Jul 5, 20215 min read

This is a criminal case entitled "Harry Choa y Sy and Antonio Tan y Po vs. People of the Philippines" with G.R. No. 256162. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the petitioners guilty of six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The Court also modified the interest imposed on the petitioners. The Supreme Court is narrowly confined to reviewing legal issues and will not take cognizance of the factual issues raised by the petitioners. The factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on this Court.

Quick Answers

What is Choa y Sy v. People about?

Which court decided Choa y Sy v. People?

Choa y Sy v. People was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

When was Choa y Sy v. People decided?

Choa y Sy v. People (G.R. No. 256162 (Notice)) was decided on Jul 5, 2021.

What is the citation for Choa y Sy v. People?

Choa y Sy v. People, G.R. No. 256162 (Notice), Jul 5, 2021 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 256162. July 5, 2021.]

HARRY CHOA y SY AND ANTONIO TAN y PO, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 July 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 256162 (Harry Choa y Sy and Antonio Tan y Po v. People of the Philippines) — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.

This petition for review on certiorari prays for a verdict of acquittal after the Court shall have determined that petitioners, Harry Choa y Sy, and Antonio Tan y Po did not receive the demand letter, the checks were issued without any consideration, and they intended the checks not to be deposited but only to guarantee the payment of their obligation. In fine, petitioners are raising pure factual issues which the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not take cognizance of.

In petitions for review on certiorari via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is narrowly confined to the review of legal issues. Hence, the Court will not take cognizance of the factual issues here, let alone, calibrate anew the evidence which had already been thoroughly evaluated and considered thrice by the tribunals below. 1 More, the factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals in full, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal. 2 Indeed, in the absence of any showing that the assailed verdict of conviction was based on misapprehension of facts or pure speculation or was otherwise tainted with grave abuse of discretion, there is no cogent reason to depart from this general rule in the present case.

Verily, therefore, we find that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming petitioners' conviction for six (6) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

As for the proper penalty, we modify the interest imposed by the lower courts to conform to Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 3 The principal amount of Six Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Forty-Five Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P661,045.50) covered by the subject checks due to private respondent Hypig Genetics, Inc. (Hypig), shall earn 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Informations 4 on July 10, 2012 until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. The total amount due to Hypig shall further earn 6% interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 5

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 19, 2020 and Resolution dated March 11, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43196 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners HARRY CHOA y SY and ANTONIO TAN y PO are GUILTY of six (6) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. They are ordered to PAY the following FINES with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, viz.:

1. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for Criminal Case No. 249887;

2. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for Criminal Case No. 249888;

3. One Hundred Nine Thousand Pesos (P109,000.00) for Criminal Case No. 249889;

4. One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) for Criminal Case No. 249890;

5. One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) for Criminal Case No. 249891; and

6. One Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Forty-Five Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P132,045.50) for Criminal Case No. 249892.

Petitioners are further ORDERED to PAY private respondent HYPIG GENETICS, INC., the total amount of Six Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Forty-Five Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P661,045.50) representing the face value of the six (6) bounced checks with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Informations on July 10, 2012, until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. The total amount owing private respondent Hypig Genetics, Inc., shall further earn 6% interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 2882 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. See Gutan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265-266 (2017).

2. See Pizarro-Espiritu v. People, G.R. No. 252812 (Notice), December 2, 2020.

3. 716 Phil. 267-283 (2013) [Per J. Peralta].

4.Rollo, p. 1550.

5. See Martin v. Yturralde, G.R. No. 203364 (Notice), February 11, 2019 and Saulo v. People, G.R. No. 242900 (Resolution), June 8, 2020.